The "The enemy team has just as much chance as your team to get a bot/low skill player/toxic player so stop complaining" argument does not make the game experience any better

When the argument is not "its not fair I'm losing all the time" and rather "these problems are ruining HL/TL" etc., the issue is that afks, poor matchmaking, early "gg" callers, and tilted by math homework still ruins the game for 10 players. The common upvote magnet arguments do hold sometime, but they need to read the question before we throw these arguments into anything

So the only option is to play a single player game or at least one that is not team focused.

Blizzard doesn't have any way of knowing when someone is going to go AFK or get toxic or call gg at 3 minutes or have bad map awareness.

If you're going to play this game, you simply have to accept the fact that the only thing you can control is you. You can have some influence over your teammates by having a good attitude and making good calls, but understand that because of the extreme team based focus of this game, no one will ever have a 100% win rate no matter how good they are. Get an undesirable player on your team? Make the best of the situation and shake it off.

If you simply can't do that, then maybe a different game is your cup of tea

I don't think I've had any DCs whenever I played in the last months, I think that was mostly an issue in the early days of the game. That said, I play about 3 hours a month, so there might be issues but I just don't experience them.

I'll be real with ya. Dark Souls 3 was the first time I tried any of them in the series. I died about 6 times trying to make it by like 4 skeletons, then the first boss proceed to kill me about and 10 before I got him. I asked my friend if it gets easier, he said "oh no". So I went ahead and took it out of my Ps4, gave thay cursed disc to him as a "gift" and pray that I never have to feel that bad again in the world of video games. Just wanted to share lol

"and that's why this is the best team based MOBA in all of video games" giant Kappa

all kidding aside, outside of some people who have social disorders - the game plays fine a large % of the time. probably degrades heavily the further down the ladder you go... but... like you said, a lot of people here in the community have problems with the pressures of competition but feel the need to think theyre "skilled Video heroes!" until the fantasy is shattered.

I think your response mostly is an excellent response to players frustrated about these issues. Yes, its inevitable, and yes sometimes we just got to toughen up and take it on the stride. However, I will say that I'm not a big fan of "then don't play this game".

The issue is that players are frustrated and are expressing their frustrations via a post. Apart from trolls, this is something that is healthy for the game, since it gives voice to opinions of players, and leads to discussion about the matter. Whats NOT good is simply "shutting down" these opinions with not-reading-the-question-properly responses that seems nearly copy and pasted from previous threads. There are popular opinions in this subreddit, and while its okay to stand with them, I'm just saying lets not do away with the rest of the opinions too. I want to see more responses like yours in this subreddit for issues like this.

The problem isn't fixable from a practical perspective though. That's why when anyone complains about a leaver or feeder or rager or etc. etc. etc., the usual response is "You are the only consistent factor in all of your games and you can tilt the odds in your favor over a large period of games." People get too hung up on a singular bad game they had and think that it matters when the system is designed around hundreds of games being played. Just because someone is vocal doesn't mean their complaints are valid. Usually they're just confused on how the system works and are frustrated for the wrong reasons. There's no way to fix toxicity other than silencing/banning people (which does happen, I've been silenced multiple times before I got my act together), so learning to handle it properly rather than getting frustrated in the only true solution.

Yes, it is. Dota can be a toxic community, but there are VERY few leavers in ranked. Considering that matches are twice as long, which would make people twice as likely to leave, it completely contradicts your view that it isn't "fixable". Yes, it is, it just needs harsher punishment.

Usually they're just confused on how the system works and are frustrated for the wrong reasons.

The match was ruined. There is no winrate fixing in the future that will bring back the 30 min of frustration I spent playing with a BOT. Winning against a bot in the future is NOT the solution.

Yes, it is. Dota can be a toxic community, but there are VERY few leavers in ranked.

Do you have some data to prove this? There isn't anything special about the game other than a ready check at the start of the game, which HotS could certainly benefit from. Otherwise, I'm not inclined to believe that it's just magically different.

The match was ruined. There is no winrate fixing in the future that will bring back the 30 min of frustration I spent playing with a BOT. Winning against a bot in the future is NOT the solution.

You're still getting hung up on one game when the system is designed around hundreds. In the long run, that game will not make a difference. It's a frustrating experience everyone endures but beyond a ready check has no practical solution.

Leavers get sent to Low Priority Queue to play with other toxic/leavers. There's nothing magical about that, it's punishment. They either get their act together or get forever stuck playing with players similar to their own attitude.

You're still getting hung up on one game when the system is designed around hundreds

It happens all the time, way too often. If this problems persist much longer I won't be there for the hundreds. Sometimes I play 10 matches on a night and only 1 game gets a leaver. Sometimes I get 3 frustrating in a row and go play something else. I don't believe I'm the only one, this could be hurting the number of people actually willing to play the game.

has no practical solution

Yes, it has, I can't prove with statistics because neither game will share leaver's numbers, but I have 3000+ hours played in dota2 and a little less than 2000 matches in hots. The difference of leaving in the games is brutal. It's REALLY rare in dota. REALLY rare.

Leavers get sent to Low Priority Queue to play with other toxic/leavers. There's nothing magical about that, it's punishment. They either get their act together or get forever stuck playing with players similar to their own attitude.

This already exists in Heroes. Leavers play with leavers for the duration of their punishment.

It happens all the time, way too often. If this problems persist much longer I won't be there for the hundreds. Sometimes I play 10 matches on a night and only 1 game gets a leaver. Sometimes I get 3 frustrating in a row and go play something else. I don't believe I'm the only one, this could be hurting the number of people actually willing to play the game.

Are you playing in lower leagues? I don't have much experience in this area, but if you're playing in a lower league where there are lots of leavers and you're the consistent factor in your team, then you should move up to a higher rank with less leavers since you will have leavers less often than your opposing team.

I've played almost 4k games and just cracked Master this season. I very, very rarely ever get people who completely disconnect for an entire match. It could very much be a symptom of low-rated leagues (it makes sense, people who disconnect frequently are not likely to be highly ranked). I don't know why you think the games are different when both of the games have the same system other than the ready check once the game loads, which I agree would be a good addition.

While the lower ranks may have more issues with leavers, I feel that "ranking up" as a solution to this may be a little unfair. Being a gold/plat player for all season despite consistent practice and games, I think I just am at the gold/plat level of skill and the MMR system got me in the right spot.

Meaning that players who are lower league just by default (not everyone plays games at the same level) are suffering even if they are model citizens, never leaving, never toxic, always trying to win the game, doing obj etc. I feel like we need a solution for lower league leaving problems (if it exists) rather than hoping all the good-hearted people manage to escape into the highlands

I said this to /u/Vichnaiev, but I definitely didn't say that being low-rated is a justification for being exposed to leavers, but rather is a possible explanation for why you could run into these people more frequently.

Is it truly a poor design if someone who is a model system but is very unskilled at the game is matched with someone who is potentially more skilled but has a really crapped connection/rages nonstop/etc. which keeps them from moving up to their appropriate skill? It seems to balance out even if it's not particularly enjoyable. Unfortunately there are already punishments in place, but leavers and ragers are still going to happen no matter what system is put into place.

This already exists in Heroes. Leavers play with leavers for the duration of their punishment.

They are not doing a good job at it, punishment is too light. I wasn't high ranked in dota either (3k MMR, pretty much average). Being average is not a good justification for having lots of leavers in your games.

"You're not a superstar, so you gotta deal with leavers" is not a valid argument. Leavers should play with LEAVERS until they stop leaving, not with average players.

I'm used to mobas, I can go through frustration and still log back in next week. Imagine new players dealing with this shit ... they won't come back.

you should move up to a higher rank

I don't think anyone reasonable ever thought that was a good argument in a matchmaking design discussion. "Git good".

I didn't say that being low-rated is a justification, but simply an explanation of why you might be exposed to it more. I don't understand what you mean by they're not doing a good job at it. You said DotA has a leaver queue, but this game does too. It's literally an identical system, but you personally feel like there's a difference between the games with no evidence of that actually being the case. I don't know how to proceed further when there isn't anything concrete and the systems are not different.

The system is not identical. Punishment in HOTS is VERY light and in dota VERY harsh. Just look at the below description of dota's system. Does it look like getting out of leaver's hell is easier in dota or in hots? You have to WIN matches to get out of it. WIN. Not only participate in hell, you have to DESERVE to get out of it.

"Low priority will be lifted after a set number of games won, starting with 1 games to be won and increasing by 2 per abandon while already in low priority, up to 5 games to be won in total, after that an additional 24 hour ban will be given upon each abandon. Reports against a player who won their last game in low priority will carry on to their next games. If they get reported multiple times during the next game, they will be put into low priority queue once more."

Dont DOTA players surrender instead? Not a DOTA player so won't dive too far into that pool.

I will say your point of happening "all the time" is not true, but I think too many players will agree with you on "way too often". Sometimes I feel we could have a team with the driving energy of the heroes creation pumpline to work on these issues.

If the player leaves within the first few minutes of the game the other 9 can still finish it, but the match won't get ranked. Usually most people just quit since you are not invested enough into the game to finish an unbalanced match.

If the player leaves after X minutes (haven't played for months) the game will get ranked but that player gets a loss and something like TEN matches on leaver's hell. Since HOTS matches are so short, you'd think Blizzard would implement at least TWENTY punishment matches, but no ... what is it now? One, three? I don't even know.

Edit: It's a maximum of 5 matches (if you keep leaving), but there's a catch. You have to WIN, losing doesn't count. If you exceed 5 matches of punishment by leaving matches in leaver's hell you get banned.

Not everyone thinks it's normal to regularly waste 30 minutes in frustrating games with bots.

It takes at least 3 minutes to matchmake, sometimes 5+. It takes another 3 minutes to draft. If the match takes another 20, you have close to 30 min wasted. Punishment should be harsher than it is now, this is not OK.

This game has a very small playerbase, if a new player comes to the game and has to deal with this he'll quit and never come back.

I guess my personal frustrations from stuff I witness in this subreddit, how the front page looks very different to the "New" section, how the r/heroesofthestorm defenders start building the Great Wall when an OP hero with 67% winrate is released, and things of the sort are reflected on my opinions and comments I right. I cannot agree more on your point of "singular bad game" and I must admit I've made posts for the same reason myself. I feel that as you said, its not an easy fix, and I feel the work needs to be done from the players, the game, and even this subreddit if we want to get improvements for even the smallest of things

Oh yeah, when KT/Li Ming/Zarya/Samuro came out and people were saying "people just need to learn how to play around this 70% win rate character!" Sometimes you just have to ignore the whiners and let Blizzard sort their shit out. :)

To be fair though this subreddit is flooded with low quality posts regarding toxicity almost every day, and it's getting pretty tiresome.

In my humble opinion toxicity is not really an issue that needs this kind of attention since we do have adequate tools to deal with it: mute and report. If someone is being an ass the game allows you to instantly mute that person and report him if needed.

The issue that requires some more attention from the devs is ways to faster act on people afking and intentionally feeding since they are actually ruining games for people.

I would also like to question why silenced players aren't allowed to play ranked. If feels quite weird to me that this is the case, when you can play ranked with your chat turned off.

Very good point on the toxicity thing, the tools are definitely there to shut it off when it happens, but it often leads to worse behavior (feeding), miscommunication (can't talk strategies, big problem for players who disable chat permanently), and leaves the big questions of "can we prevent it?" One could argue that poor matchmaking that is in part due to the afk/feeding behavior ruining precision in MMR calculation leads to further toxicity, and no doubt the dev team is talking about this daily. I remember Overwatch Ranked having so many changes for their leaver system, maybe Heroes could implement some ideas as well. Also, while the devs stated that not having "Surrender" as an option can reduce toxicity, one could argue it can reduce tilt caused by afk and feeders.

Yes but that is often precipitated by an argument of some kind by both parties or the "muter" stating in chat "I'm gonna mute you now", which is counter productive behaviour. If you just mute instantly, the toxic guy won't be able to affect you, and you won't trigger his toxic behaviour with any reply, however diplomatic it is.

I'm not saying I always succeed in keeping my calm and I've been triggered by toxic comments a couple of times and started arguing, but that's on me, not the system.

Agreed that muting is not beneficial when it comes to communicating regarding strategies but if someone is being toxic to a point that it's effecting you, the limitation to communication is preferable to the alternative. I was merely pointing out that this sub seems to think its perfectly reasonable to bar silenced players from ranked whilst allowing people with chat turned off entry which doesn't make any sense to me alteast.

can we prevent it?

Probably not completely. The system to effectively deal with toxic players are already in place but people seem incapable of using it for some reason. You can argue that the devs should make further improvements on this system however (hopefully they will).

One could argue that poor matchmaking that is in part due to the afk/feeding behavior ruining precision in MMR calculation leads to further toxicity,

I seriously doubt this is a thing, but I don't have access to the data so anything on this topic is speculation.

Also, while the devs stated that not having "Surrender" as an option can reduce toxicity, one could argue it can reduce tilt caused by afk and feeders.

The problem with a surrender option is that it's prone to misused. I'm not entirely against it though and I think it would be reasonable to be able to vote for surrender if you have a bot on the team. However, to avoid sand-baging I believe you should still lose the same amount of ranked points. It would simply be a QoL thing. Maybe a more eloquent surrender system could be implemented but it would have to be equipped with a lot of safe guards.

It's not about winning 100% of the time, (if matchmaking were fair, you'd be about 50% of the time) it's about having your personal contribution and performance measure and matter in team games.

Good example; in LoL, I used to Elo boost my friends accounts for the End of Season Skin (They never played ranked, usually ARAMs). It was just to Gold, so it was pretty easy. But I always pick a carry jungler (Shaco, Tryndamere, Win Now) or a stupidly easy top laner (Pre-Rework Darius, Riven, Nasus, Singed.) Why? Because I could get fed and just win the game. Doesn't matter how badly my team did when I can back door turrets and 1v5 the enemy team. (Well, more like 1v3 and have the other 2 trickle in late into the fight, but Noxian Guillotine resets OP!)

Here, matches are decided by the worst player regardless of skill level. I mentioned in an earlier comment that earlier today, I had a match were our Zul'jin and Azmodan had 20+ deaths combined, pretty much making 4/5ths of the deaths. There was nothing I or my 2 other teammates could do, because we ALL had an exp deficit despite all 3 of us dying 4 times combined.

Like, there's nothing we can do to help that level of stubbornness. And then all 5 of us get a loss, and we all get lowered down together. And as you decline, the opportunity to get those teammates increase.

Granted, I'm not saying 'ELO HELL" as I made a thread last year that if you play enough games, it will settle. (As I made 3 Smurf Accounts to test) but it takes an absurdly large amount of games if you've been playing since the alpha, and have legit improved, but are being "clamped" from a poor start or a poor season. Even worse, it feels punishing as an individual being held hostage like that.

If you try to carry here like in League, of course it's going to fail. You carry by being more aware of the game situation, pushing in lanes that your teammates are neglecting, soaking XP to get your team fed, and getting free 1v1 kills with your mechanical experience. It's different, not impossible.

I have played way too much TLV and Abathur to tell you soaking and shoving do not win games. I have given teams a 2-3 level lead, at times a heroic advantage, only for them to blow it. It just takes one idiot to get caught out once or twice to close the level gap.

It's not about guaranteed strategy, its that lower skilled players don't know how to

A) Play with a level/talent lead but be down a body on objective

B) Play from behind, focusing on side objectives and avoiding fights until the gap is closed

I used to say matches are decided by the worst player, not the best; in a way I still stand by that. Yeah, over time, over 200+ games, it'll start correcting itself as by a numbers stand point, you only have a 40% chance from the enemy team's 50% chance if you actually are better, but it really does count on which team has the load.

Personal contribution feels like it has no weight, I think that's why the community is such in a lax state. There aren't any mid level content creators designed for improvement. There aren't many sites dedicated to guides of the game, very few coaches and streamers compared to other MOBAs.

Hell, even WoW has a ton of class and raid guides for people clearing normal and heroic, and that's not even close to "hardcore" and still minority of the community that choose to do that content.

It's quite telling that there isn't a market in this game for players who want to improve their play.

I'm pretty sure the reason there isn't nearly as much content for this game as there is for games like WoW and League is that it hasn't quite been around for as much of an eternity as they have. ;-)

Beyond the fact that it's been statistically proven that the best player on a team is the most important factor (via HotSlogs data), everything you say about lower-skilled players applies to the other team as well. Like, I thought you said that lower-skilled players were unable to capitalize on a level lead? But you can't say that and also say that lower-skilled players are unable to play from behind. ;-)

Mostly, people coming from games where you can numerically carry are disappointed when they can't numerically carry and have to rely on impactful ability usage. Adopt a support mindset, not a carry mindset, and you can carry games on characters with impactful abilities like ETC.

I'm pretty sure the reason there isn't nearly as much content for this game as there is for games like WoW and League is that it hasn't quite been around for as much of an eternity as they have.

League had a strong content community since about 2 years after it came out; HotS is getting up there.

Like, I thought you said that lower-skilled players were unable to capitalize on a level lead? But you can't say that and also say that lower-skilled players are unable to play from behind.

I said level/talent lead with a body down on the objective if I'm 2-3 lane soaking for EXP. And playing from behind still stands.

Adopt a support mindset, not a carry mindset, and you can carry games on characters with impactful abilities like ETC.

I have a 30% winrate with support and about 40% with warriors in solo queue (Despite having close to 60% in both roles when I duo'd) And if you think idiots who don't know not to trickle in 1v4 dying for a lost objective are going to capitalize on 4 man mosh pit or peel for the healer? No, they're not.

There's a reason why over 60% of the Grandmaster players are assassin mains

;-)

Is this the new passive aggressive "roach boy" thing to say when you're rustled? Seriously, this isn't AIM and you're not a 14 year old girl.

I hear this argument a lot, but I have yet to encounter these mythical players who will listen when you make a good call, and/or have their toxic attitude countered by your positive one.

I just hit 40 and I'm playing with 2 friends, so the game seems to balance our relatively decent skill out by giving us the most toxic, unskilled, petty teammates on earth. A recent example is a guy playing murky who wanted to take a bruiser camp that the enemy had just taken. so he solved this by running in a circle waiting for the camp to respawn. No amount of polite suggestion that he should help us could sway him. He spent the remainder of the match throwing his blowfish at a turret in a lane with no minions in it. Good times.

I'm always super positive. I know that telling someone to 'stop attempting to drown the enemy in your blood, shitcunt' isn't ever going to be effective, and if I ping danger, or assists, it is apparently conclusive proof that I am a 'gay faggot', or just have someone spam 'r u idiot?' in chat.

Sometimes it feels like I spend more time trying to play nursery nurse to bad players so their egos don't get hurt than i do actually playing the game...

That doesn't really change his argument though. The fact that for every 9 game sruined by a troll / afk / whatever, I will win 5 and lose 4 doesn't change the fact that probably all 9 of those games will be a non fun waste of time.

This kind of short-sighted opinions are exactly what leads to people being ill-equiped to evaluate statistical probabilities of certain things occurring, and analysing what solutions can and can't work.

Does winning games because the other team has a toxic player (you usually have no idea) reduce the game experience for you?

While I don't disagree that toxicity in chat reduces the quality of the game, I don't see what more can be done. Silences are already being liberally applied. I play with chat muted to avoid the whole problem. I suggest you try it.

While I cant tell every case when there are toxic players on enemy teams, sometimes its very clear and really is disappointing. Sometimes its big like intentional feeding, while in other cases certain players stop still and are clearly typing something (hopefully its constructive, but experience tells me otherwise). I prefer to have a close match where 10 players are trying instead of a 1 sided stomp.

Does winning games because the other team has a toxic player (you usually have no idea) reduce the game experience for you?

It depends how they choose to show it. When an enemy Abathur tunnels into our fort for an entire match and we end up winning the match 9 minutes in, then that degrades my experience. I like good games where all 10 people do well and someone just eventually has to win.

I started this season with chat muted, and I ended up winning 20 more games than I'd lost. Possibly lucky, I'm not sure. But lately I started leaving chat on and I found myself engaging with toxic players again, and I finally got silenced for the first time over the weekend (I think the increase of shit players increased my toxicity levels - not proud of it but there we are). So I'm going back to muting everybody again and seeing if it actually does make a difference, or whether I just got lucky at the start of the season.

Ultimately, it's part of the solo queue game. It's annoying and awful, but perhaps if it's really a deal breaker and it's tiresome, maybe the solution is to give team league a try. Part of the contract when you solo queue is that you are going to have to deal with sub-optimal teammates. And as bad as this is, it IS part of the challenge, to learn not to break team morale or to learn to preserve it even when a teammate is being an idiot.

Well, I'm really sorry, but I don't want to be on your team. I really don't. It could be Blizzard's faulty code or your machine, I don't care. I don't wanna play with people that constantly drop or d/c.

Bliz could be smarter about this though... I mean if you DC while 3 lvls up with the enemy core at 20% it shouldn't punish you. On the other hand if you just happen to DC everytime they get 10-8 and team wipe you... well screw that guy :)

I personally do not agree too well with the "when you do X, you are going in knowing that Y may happen" thing. Its a really popular respnse in this subreddit, and it appears usually in the "you're going into QM, you should know your games are going to be all over the place".

Here's the thing: is that REALLY what we are expecting going into this mode? Using your contract metaphor as an example, going into Vs. AI means that you are signing up on games where you know the other heroes are going to move like dorks, going to play poorly compared to players. Going into QM, you are signing up for games that doesn't have a draft, so comps are going to be everywhere, but you will be playing with and against actualy players.

You are NOT signing up for a game mode that says "you might get a bot, deal with it". Nor are you signing up for "QM matchmaking is supposed to be like that, and the MMR differences are all over the place" or "players like to troll". I did not sign up for the challenge of playing with a bot in QM. You shouldn't complain about "we never get a healer", or "why don't we have a Ragnaros", thats against the contract, but unless r/heroesofthestorm has power over the agreement in anyway, the contract doesn't specifically mention "QM games have a chance to be lousy." You don't get this because that would be a marketing failure.

How beautiful would it be to log in, see 15 of your most reliable 'teammates' online, and know what roles and heroes they prefer to play? Your guild can have voice chat, and that voice chat persists to in game chat. Team League would become what it was always meant to be.

This is kind of irrelevant to my OP, but would a guild system kind of hinder the new player experience? I know that Heroes is really about the team play experience, and with the esports scene its clear that real high class heores doesnt happen without team coordination, but if the game becomes "play as team or lose", wouldn't that make it so that new players really need to find guilds fast or face premades all the time, which would discourage them from playing? I personally am all in for guilds, but the counter arguments are convincing.

Theoretically newer players would be playing with newer players. I imagine there will be guilds established with the intent of training newbies as well as guilds established looking for X amount of experieince or X amount of games played or X Hotslogs MMR just like any other competitive guild in the game.

I'm not so sure, as you said, it is very "theoretical". I personally find the premade issue in QM a big frustration to play, which means guild system could have problems too. I just hope the guild system is going to be implemented well

No one is saying it is. But its still fact, and its still the best counter to the constant flood of whini g that literally no one can do anything about. Toxic players will always exist Deal with it or play single player games.

I was wondering what specifics you were looking for talking points. I see a few, wondering how many more you had. I'll briefly address what I see.

Afks. Unavoidable in a multiplayer game. There is a leaver queue, with rank penalties when you leave. Before someone can get to the leaver queue, they have to leave a game that has other people in it. I'd recommend counting if you see a lot of leavers. Make sure to report them. Beyond this, maybe a harsher punishment would be better, I am not sure what the current standard is, or if it scales upwards as you leave more.

Matchmaking. First, I have never played a game that included other people that hasn't had someone complaining about matchmaking. That said, the matchmaking in hots has improved dramatically since I started playing in alpha. There is more that can be done, but they have tweaked it. Solo games I usually get very good matches (high gold/low plat) with low disparity between teammates. I can see that the small pool at the top will have a harder time getting a good match. I am not sure 40 minute queues are the solution, but maybe it would. What changes did you want to see?

Early gg callers. Unfortunately, sometimes people give up. Sometimes I am in a game, and I get so frustrated I go on autopilot and stop trying so hard (though I don't call gg). Should there be a surrender option? I really don't think so, due to match length and the comeback mechanics in hots. If there were, at what point do you allow it? I could see allowing a surrender when you get an afk, but most other scenarios would allow for heavy abuse.

Math homework. Tilt happens in any game where you compete, no way around it. They have reporting options for abusive chat, intentional feeding, and others. I'd suggest using the report optons. What solutions do you recommend for dealing with this?

In summary, you raise valid concerns that are a challenge every single multiplayer game has to deal with. They have systems in place to combat these. Ultimately, it feels like you want harsher punishments for violations. That could be a way to go, but they are still working off of the smaller base problem, and they don't want to drive off playerbase by having harsh punishment for false positives, likely leaning towards a more forgiving approach to bad behavior.

The point of these arguments, really, is that these factors don't have to ruin the game for you. It's all about your mindset, and what you let get to you. The arguments are there to demonstrate that, practically-speaking, these kinds of players don't meaningfully impact your win percentage, so they shouldn't ruin the game for you.

"Poor matchmaking" - Many players are good with just a handful of heroes, but sometimes cannot pick one of those heroes for whatever reason. This will always lead to some inconsistency in their perceived skill in an isolated game. Just because they did not play well in that one game with you does not mean they always play like that. Matchmaking cannot account for this in any way.

The problem I see most of the time, meaning about 80-90% of games, is not that a player isn't kickass with a given hero, but that that player consistently and intentionally feeds and/or doesn't participate - ie: losing on purpose.

Comp still plays a big role. I have had times where I dominate with a hero and get MVP and everyone upvotes. Then next game I get picked no matter what I try to do with the same hero. I didn't decide to just become someone who feeds, they just had good counter picks to shut me down. And I'm sure just about everyone has been in this position before. Of course there is always something I could have done differently, but learning that will come with time. The game is just a complex version of rock-paper-scissors, especially at higher ranks where everyone is mechanically good and outcomes are more based on strategy.

To be fair, it is mostly not even a question, but usually a rant or demand for Blizzard to whip out their magic wand and fix AFKers and random DCs.

Yes, there are two sides to it. One is win rate, and apparently people need to be reminded time and again that completely random factors like AFKers, DCs, or weekend warriors do not, in fact target specific peole individually and that overall, those things are even good for your win rate, provided that you yourself are never the problem.

The other side is, as you state, enjoyment. And yes, this is a problem. The issue is that the proposed "solutions" have so far IMO always been pieces of absolutely not thought-through bullshit like exceptions for ranked points (and suddenly, it is about win rates again) in special cases or exceptions for a surrender button in special cases where the one demanding often does not seem to realize that the act of implementing this would already open the doors for (at least attempted) abuse and toxicity.

The thing that irks me the most is that while I think there is a valid complaint to be made about enjoyment issues in these fringe cases, it is apparently highly difficult to accept a simple and IMO obvious "there is little to be done about it, just suck it up". Also, the current system does have some advantages:

It is really simple. You don't get points back, you don't get to surrender. You can relax your mind and stop thinking about it.

It is fair, in the sense that it does not give any abusable advantages to anyone. (Which leads to the next point).

It is of a nature where (rationally) you know that AFKers, DCers and everything else do not ever get an advantage out of ruining your game. Therefore, apart from hardcore trolls who are ready to lose games just to spite someone (much more rare than this sub would have you believe), nobody in the HotS environment is in any way "out to get you". This is good to know and, again, should put people's mind at ease. Most if not all of the demands that I've seen made at pitchfork-point here in this sub in those threads would endanger this guarantee of benevolence. I find it sad that people cannot appreciate it more.

I know a free win when i get one and it does make me feel uncomfortable because i know it was RNG that i happened to be on the right side of the draft for that one. There have been days when i have gotten a W streak going for absolutely free and i never thought "it was all me", i felt really uneasy queueing in those days because it was largely a matter of luck if my side got the double digit death tilter(s) or not. Losing is not what is giving me anxiety i don't play this game just to have a green match history but what makes losing hard is the way you lose. Im perfectly fine losing a game where each team got keeps down or where everyone tries to improve instead flaming and tilting but i don't like being stomped by 4 levels because RNG MM gave me a memester (or two) who are playing a single player game.

My only problem with afks and leaver is that you have to sit through the 20+ minute game even though everyone left on your team knows it will be a stomp anyway. Just end the game when one side has a leaver who doesn't return for x time.

But TBF, Matchmaking feels like gutters or strikes, nothing in between. Game before last, on my team we had a Azmo and Zuljin who died+20 times plus combined, Before that, I had a Murky who died a total of 29 times (7.25 deaths) and I topped all the stats those games with lowest deaths.

Most recent game however, my team dominated to the point that we didn't even lose a fort in a Garden of Terror match against a Hammer, TLV, and Dehaka. The opponents were just trickling in and completely forgot about the seeds.

Both of those experiences, as a player were very unsatisfying. It's not fun to be the statiscal best player (Just from a numbers standpoint, I'm sure I could've coordinated and communicated with the team better, which is also a sign of a good player) on the team and still lose by a massive margin, but it's also not fun playing against opponents that the entire team trounces in every aspect.

This argument is what makes me upset in the first place. Back when i duo queued with a friend we seemed to have an 80% or so rate of the useless/toxic person on our team. We would make the argument that the chance is the same for him to be over there but it just never happenned. Plus it is always more likely the person would be on the other team because you have 1 less slot for a toxic person to fill.

The entire premise of your title is a strawman arguement though. Nobody responds with that defense when people are complaining about having a poor overall game experience, they respond with it because the common ELO hell whine is "I can't climb because my team is troll / afk / baddies".

Edit: Also, assuming you yourself are not the troll/baddy/afker... the enemy team has a chance of 5 people being one, while your team only has a chance of 4 people being one... So your premise is incorrect again.

It's also not true. Not in any useful fashion. The chances might be the same, but that emphatically does not mean it'll balance out-- there will always, always be people on one end of the distribution or another, who get tons of great games or tons of crappy ones.

A 1-in-5 chance shared between people is, indeed, fair and equal odds. It doesn't stop it from sucking when John hits that 1-in-5 in 3 out of 5 games and Billy hits it in none.

Following your argument, you could also complain about losing in a coin toss game. Keep in mind, this whole type of complaint is most often connected to some demand for the developer or community to do something about it (which is where it becomes pure bullshit IMO).

This is the part I'm not buying. For one, there isn't that much to be done without breaking important design decision for the game (like "no surrender"). Also, they are doing a little (report system for both nonparticipation and intentionally dying is in place). This is not the kind of "doing nothing" that is equivalent to silently condoning.

people tend to tank their winrate even more with getting too upset about the occasional troll or feeder in your team. Let's say you get a troll every 3rd game. If you give up the instant you notice a troll thats almost certainly a loss every 3rd game. Whereas if your mindset allows you not to be a useless crying baby that mindlessly rolls on the floor in agony you might up that almost certain loss to a 40% chance of still winning the troll game.

The problem is a lot bigger than that. And I personally play HotS to play together with my team against the enemy team - I really have no interest in having to also be up against people on my own team.

The point of that argument is to go against people saying they're stuck at a rank lower than they should be because of those people. It's not saying that those aren't problems but rather that they have no baring on your rank after you amass a sufficient sample size.

No one is saying that those things aren't a problem only that they don't invalidate the ranked system.

Actually, logic indicates it would be more likely for them to get hit with AFK/bot/low skill/toxic than you (assuming the best of you: that you will not AFK, use a bot, be unskilled nor toxic). You have 4 potential teammates that could be the above. The enemy team has 5 potential slots.

Maybe play a game that's 1v1 or a single player game then. These things are just part of a team game. But many people only play team games so they can blame their teammates when they lose. If you're one of those people then carry on I guess.

The biggest issue with these types of posts is that often times the posters seem to think Blizzard is supposed to have a cure-all for human nature. Every single online game I have played dating back to the '90s has had these same type of people, either they are having a bad day, or simply enjoy ruining other peoples enjoyment. My suggestion is to heed advice from the oldest saying on the internet. Don't Feed the Trolls.

Toxic players are part of any multiplayer game. From the sore loser who flips the table to all those hockey fights and even shootings and stabbings, any competitive social activity will open the door to people doing unpleasant things.

And as in real life, the only way to completely avoid toxic people is to stop playing. Otherwise, you have to live with it to an extent. Even a private playgroup is to an extent limited by who you know and who likes to play. I think any WoW guild has had to balance the ideal of having good, sane players with the practical problem of filling spots.

Can the current system be improved? Probably, but not on a grand scale. If a player wants to argue that first-picking Gazlowe and split-pushing all game is a good way to play, now Blizz has to answer the philosophical question of whether they should use administrative power to enforce orthodox play.

I don't think that's what they want. And they're definitely not going to take action against people for being bad at the game. So we're back to the old question: is it a problem you can deal with or does it hurt your enjoyment too much?

It doesn't, but the problem lies in the fact that you have 100% control over yourself and 0 over everyone else. Dicks, douches and other bad people will forever roam this earth (unfortunately) and you can only do so much to at least try to make yourself feel as best as you can.

It doesn't. Since there are 5 non-you on the other team and 4 on yours, if you play enough games the luck factor diminishes. It is only a big factor if you play fewer than, say, 50 ranked games per season (loose estimation).

Yes, it does. You have no control over the other players. Each and everyone of the other 9 can either play well, play poorly or intentionally try to sabotage their team. You have no control over that - only matchmaking does. Thus once you queue up for a game, it's a matter of luck as a huge percentage of the match outcome is determined before the game starts - by a matchmaking system that completely ignores individual skill levels.

Do you understand statistics? there is a 4/9 chance the saboteur is on your team, and a 5/9 chance he is on the enemy team. Given enough games, and that you don't troll, the saboteur is in the enemy team more often than yours. play enough games and encounter enough trolls and they'll be in the enemy team more often than yours.

The "The enemy team has just as much chance as your team to get a bot/low skill player/toxic player so stop complaining" argument

They are 25% more likely to get one, as there are 5 slots for them in the opposing team but only 4 in your team, unless you are one yourself.

Getting Blizzard to change is unlikely but you can change yourself. Mute ally chat if you think toxic players are a problem. You can also improve your game, for the higher your rank, the less people throw and afk. As if they do, they lose ranks.

In casual team games, there will always be someone who makes the team worse, be it by play style, attitude or external problems. That's life, it isn't something you can expect Blizzard to fix. Someone has kids, a dog or what not that is more important than the game for them and they have to leave to sort it out.

It happens, posting the same complaints about it over and over is even less constructive than the people who asks you to deal with it.

AFK happens way too often. They are not severe enough with the punishment. Make them "pay" more games in the leavers queue before allowing them back in ranked. I believe Blizzard is being complacent because they think bots are a good solution/replacement, guess what? It's NOT.

Go tell the person with a toxic troll on their team, whose feeding 2 minutes in, "Don't worry! The chance was just as good they could have gotten that troll too. But hey, next round, you'll only have a 50% chance of getting one again!"

The common upvote magnet arguments do hold sometime, but they need to read the question before we throw these arguments into anything

Well, to be fair, what do you expect? An hypothetical "solution"? A shoulder to cry on?

Yes, it's frustrating to lose a game because tilted brats threw it. No, it's not happening to you more than anyone else.

As for magical solutions... no MOBA has found any. If anything, the problem is much worst in DOTA/League.

Problem is people finding unfair that a bad attitude teammate lost them their precious ranking points and they feel helpless about the situation. You need to realise that it's exactly the case: it's not something you can change. It's not something Blizzard can change. So you you need to move on.

Every solution Blizzard could implement would open new ways of abuse. An analysis or report feature that could affect the MMR of players labelled "feeders, afkers, toxic" would be fantastic but also too easily abusable.

More importantly, I think Blizzard believes you have all the tools at your disposal: if you just had an awesome game, speak up and ask the other 4 guys to play with you in TL.

Higher elo have less of these problems and obviously if you're a good player flame etc won't be directed at you and it's basically the only thing that reduces bad experience : to play with better players.